> What? There are tons of places where the only restrictions on what you say, is determined by the law.
So there are still restrictions then and people can't say whatever they want?
> The standard could be "Whatever is allowed by US law", which is extremely non restrictive on speech.
voat.co is a clone of reddit where the only difference is no restriction on speech. The top posts are usually extremely racist and antisemitic. It is a horrible horrible platform and the only change is no restriction on speech.
The amount of speech that is allowed by US law is so extremely broad that those restrictions may as well not exist.
IE, lets say someone were to argue "I think it is totally OK for the government to arrest and execute people who disagree with the government in any way!", and then backed up this belief by saying "Well, you support restrictions on free speech as well! You don't think that people should be able to send mass death threats to everyone, 100 times a day! Therefore, since you support restrictions on free speech, it is totally OK to arrest anyone who disagrees with the government in any way!"
This is the argument that you are making. And it is a bad one.
The reason why it is bad, is because the restrictions on speech, in the US are almost non-existent, and that is not a good justification to do other things that are much more restrictive, such as in my extreme example of arresting anyone who disagrees with the government.
But the point is that the fact that they are so extremely small and minimal restrictions on speech in the US, is not a good excuse to justify much larger restrictions.
If the existing restrictions of US law are so minimal, it makes no sense to bring it up, as any sort of justification for much larger restrictions.
It is just not relevant to anything, to mention that, because those restrictions are small, and are therefore not related to much larger restrictions.
That would result in 90% of user generated content being spam. There's no law against me sending you 10 spam DMs a day on Twitter. Is that really what you want?
Giving people the choice of whether they want to accept moderation or not, seems reasonable.
For example, if twitter allowed everything that is allowed by law, but also gave people control over content that they see, then that seems fine.
There is a fundamantal difference between disallowing something, and giving a user the option of not seeing certain content.
IE, I do not believe that the block feature is censorship, for example.
> Is that really what you want?
I'd want to have the option to control the content that I see, as opposed to twitter forcing its own decision. I don't see a problem with someone choosing to allow spam to themselves, if they are OK with that.
What? There are tons of places where the only restrictions on what you say, is determined by the law.
> You have to set some of sort of standard
The standard could be "Whatever is allowed by US law", which is extremely non restrictive on speech.